On the subject of flags, apparently there's a new mechanic where the closer you are to the flag pole, the more you're "worth" in terms of cap rate. So a 1v1 in a cap zone won't be an eternal stalemate anymore. This is a real cool mechanic that has a ton of very interesting potential.

Also on the subject of new mechanics, if you hold the HP/Ammo Pack button, you use it on yourself.

Edit: Credit to DannyOnPC. My apologies, I'd forgotten where picked up this info.

Who Enjoys, Wins

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "BleedingUranium" (Jul 3rd 2018, 7:02pm)

I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this but I find that BFV, along with BF1, has a really floaty feel to it. This is in contrast with BF3 and the beginning of BF4, where the soldier and weapon handling being a lot more weighty. I believe it boils down to 2 reasons, sprint-out delay and sight kick. In the middle of BF4 after the CTE patches, they got rid of the sight kick and the weapon lost the weighty feel, and in BF1 they re-did movement and along with the lack of sprint-out delay, makes movement really float-y. I really miss the BF3 and beginning of BF4 feel of the game and I just can't find myself liking BFV in this state, despite the improvement in gunplay.

I believe it boils down to 2 reasons, sprint-out delay and sight kick. In the middle of BF4 after the CTE patches, they got rid of the sight kick and the weapon lost the weighty feel, and in BF1 they re-did movement and along with the lack of sprint-out delay, makes movement really float-y.

Now that I've finally managed to get a key (thanks Drunkzz3), besides the usual ordeal like game not performing all that well or the UI absolutely needing a lot of work I only want to say out loud what I believed ever since I started playing Battlefield.

Wow 64p is a meatgrinder.

Wish there were smaller servers in the alpha but it's perfectly understandable why they'd choose to force 64p upon both modes, also I've already witnessed wonky hitreg once.

I dont understand the trend of DICE to put 64p on ever smaller maps. On conquest even. Operations (the 40p version we got now came far, far too late) and rush are the main victims. BF1 is the worst offender of this, on average. Followed on it's heels by BF3.

Now that I've finally managed to get a key (thanks Drunkzz3), besides the usual ordeal like game not performing all that well or the UI absolutely needing a lot of work I only want to say out loud what I believed ever since I started playing Battlefield.

Wow 64p is a meatgrinder.

Wish there were smaller servers in the alpha but it's perfectly understandable why they'd choose to force 64p upon both modes, also I've already witnessed wonky hitreg once.

I dont understand the trend of DICE to put 64p on ever smaller maps. On conquest even. Operations (the 40p version we got now came far, far too late) and rush are the main victims. BF1 is the worst offender of this, on average. Followed on it's heels by BF3.

Because bigger numbers translates to marketing success. "BFV now with half the playercount!" does not sit very well on a promotional poster. It is also part of DICE's strategy to streamline the game into a singular gaming experience. Personally I am an avid supporter of 32 player conquest, which I find the pinnacle of design and works really good on all maps (if you leave out the vehicle mayhem that occured late in the BF4 map design cycle). I have to give it to them that the BF1 maps with 64p never felt nearly as crowded as BF4 maps. That went alogn with getting rid of clear lanes, the ultimate freedom of movement with vaulting over high obstacles, and the general lack of cover or structures on maps.
I can say that Narvik works better on Conquest, but a smaller Narivk with 32 players would be much better. And naturally objective based gamemodes with a playercount like this will always be a meatgrinder. Personally this is also the reason why I will very likely not play Grand Operations again.

In any case, DICE agenda is probably to deliver exactly one experience of BFV per gamemode and that is supported by renting the servers themselves, reducing social features and restricting server settings as well as giving out a clear meaning what "official" means. On the positive side this means everybody is on the same page, on the negative it means that the game lost a lot of variation, tactical appeal and might get dull really fast if 64p 24/7 is not totally your cup of tea. Similar what we saw in BF1, with the massive player drain after a very short time.

I believe it boils down to 2 reasons, sprint-out delay and sight kick. In the middle of BF4 after the CTE patches, they got rid of the sight kick and the weapon lost the weighty feel, and in BF1 they re-did movement and along with the lack of sprint-out delay, makes movement really float-y.

By "sight kick", do you mean visual recoil?

Yes, visual recoil. I believe they removed it midway through BF4. I can't believe I am saying this but I actually want a little bit of it. It makes the weapon feels more weighty.

All this talk of conveyor belts is idiotic, the game is more fun when there are more players, you get more kills, it's more dynamic, there is more action and more complexity, the opposite of boring, if you like small controlled environments that's fine, but 64 players is much more stimulating to the vast majority of players.